BECOMING THE
BLOODSTREAM OF THE
CORPORATE BODY
INCORPORATING AND SUSTAINING DESIRED BEHAVIOUR
December 2008
FINAL VERSIONBY ROBERT IMHOF
BY ROBERT IMHOF
BY ROBERT IMHOF
BECOMING THE BLOODSTREAM OF THE CORPORATE BODY
Incorporating and sustaining desired behaviour
Master thesis, MscBA, specialization Change Management
University of Groningen, Faculty of Management and Organization
December 5, 2008 ROBERT IMHOF Studentnumber: 1334840 Damsterdiep 24 9711 SL Groningen tel.: +31 (0)641037671 e-mail: jr.imhof@gmail.com Supervisor/ university Prof. dr. D. M. Swagerman 2nd Supervisor/ university Prof. dr. J. I. Stoker
Supervisor/ field of study
Drs. J. F. C. M. Vijverberg
Senior advisor Logistic Strategy Case A, The Hague
Acknowledgment: I want to thank Drs. J.F.C.M. Vijverberg and Prof. dr. D.M. Swagerman for
the helpful comments during the process of writing this thesis. They stimulated me to think critical and helped to improve the quality of this paper. I thank Mr. Vijverberg also for giving me access to people of Case A and the needed documents. Also special thanks to the people from the other two cases, Case B and Case c. At last, I want to thank Prof. dr. J.I. Stoker for being the second supervisor of my thesis.
CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 4 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 6 3. METHODOLOGY 19 4. RESULTS 26 5. DISCUSSION 30 6. REFERENCES 42 ABSTRACT
Purpose – This study aims to identify how first line managers of Case A should be supported and which interventions are helpful to secure the desired individual behavior of the executing personnel in the process of becoming an operational excellence organization. With the focus on the change program “Project x” of Case A.
Design/methodology/approach – The approach is qualitative and involved semi-structured in-depth interviews with first line managers, staff and executing personnel from several selected organizations. Findings – To increase the success of securing the desired behaviour interventions could be used during the change phases of Lewins’ metaphor, unfreeze-move-refreeze. Although interventions are used during these phases, it is not a guarantee that it really increased the success of securing the desired behaviour. The four securing interventions developed, involvement, instrumental anchoring, process control and teams, may support the first line manager in the securing process. All four are supported by the case studies done as successful securing interventions in the organization design. The securing interventions should be used in an integrative way, which causes contribution to the success of securing the desired individual behaviour.
Research limitations/implications – The total amount of cases used and the amount of cases in a certain work field. Also the collected data is mainly done by semi-structured interviews, which can contain bias.
Originality/value – This study provides insight into the process of securing individual behaviour and positively contributes to the role of first line managers in change processes and the use of the right (securing) interventions.
Keywords: Securing individual behaviour, First line manager, Change Management, Organizational change, Securing interventions
1. INTRODUCTION
In today’s world a lot is changing, organizations change and people change. It is generally acknowledged that the magnitude, speed, unpredictability and impact of change are greater than ever before (Burnes, 2004; Pascale, Milleman & Gioja, 1997). This also applies to Case A which is implementing a change. The American Management Association came up with some study results, and showed that 84% of American organizations have implemented at least one organizational change recently, and 46% of these American organizations were undergoing at least three organizational changes (Bareil, Savoie & Meunier, 2007). According to Burnes (2004) and Plant (1989) the number of changes increases because global markets are arising, new products are being produced, new technologies are becoming available, processes and services are changing, and competition in markets is becoming fiercer. Although the number of changes increased, decades of study of change management-disciplines have found place, legions of consultants looked at change, and leading scholars published about change, studies note that more than two-thirds of change initiatives fail (Beer & Nohria, 2000; Bolagun, 2006; Burnes, 2004; Jacobs, 2002; Oakland & Tanner, 2007; Stanleigh, 2008).
The dominant view (in literature) suggests that change processes can be unfolded in three phases (Roberto & Levesque, 2005), typically described by Lewin (1951) as a three-stage process, unfreezing-moving-refreezing. The first stage, “unfreezing” involved overcoming inertia and dismantling the existing mindset and defence mechanisms have to be bypassed. In the second stage, “moving”, the change really occurs and is characterized by confusion and transition. The third and final stage is called “refreezing”, where the new mindset is crystallizing and the comfort level of people is returning to previous levels. Given the fact that more than two-thirds of change initiatives fail (Beer & Nohria, 2000; Bolagun, 2006; Burnes, 2004; Jacobs, 2002; Oakland & Tanner, 2007; Stanleigh, 2008) a lot can be done to improve the change process and make change initiative successful.
after a while. To make change initiative more successful, the change must become ‘the way we do
things around here, it must seep into the bloodstream of the corporate body’ (Kotter, 1995: 67).
Case A, a transportation service company who provides mail delivery services for business and consumers in the Netherlands, wants to make their change initiative successful and the new learned behaviour secured. The market of Mail in the Netherlands is turbulent, reducing mail volume and growing competition causes that Case A has to make its processes more efficient and wants to grow to a more Operational Excellence Organization. According to Treacy and Wiersema (1995) should an organization who wants to reach Operational Excellence distinguish from other organizations on strategic grounds by means of excellent operational processes. The result of this strategy reaches expression such as low prices, quick and reliable deliveries and good services.
At the moment is Case A market leader in the Netherlands and wants to improve or remain its position. To reach this goal the quality must be improved, the processes must be more efficient and cost must be reduced. CASE A started with some improvement programmes, the “Nieuwe Initiatieven Masterplannen” (NIMP), which focuses on reducing cost and improvement of the efficiency. According to Treacy and Wiersema (1995) are the focuses of these NIMP’s the correct expressions for reaching an Operational Excellence Organization. The main focus of this research is on the improvement program ‘Project x’. Some pilots of this change programme have already been started. This change programme caused changes in the way of working and leadership and may have some impact on the culture and behaviour of the employees. This change programme gives the changes at Case A as presented in Table 1.
TABLE 1 – Changes at Case A
From: To:
Local realization of the logistic
basis process Processes Standardized processes Cut up, facilitated Systems Interconnected, be at the wheel Diversity in tasks Organisation Clear and interconnected tasks General frame with al lot of space
for own interpretation Management
Non-ambiguous and clear performance management Coaching from behind a desk;
process knowledge not sufficient; reactive, al lot of space for own interpretation within the frames
Style
Coaching from a distance and on basis of knowledge, proactive; from standardization
Intuitive Direct the process On basis of facts Own interpretation Culture Discipline and result
The behaviour component is a critical success factor in the change process of ‘Project x’.
becoming an operational excellence organization by the use of interventions. The focus is during the research on the change process ‘Project x’ of Case A which contributes in becoming an Operational Excellence Organization. Although, there is less literature written about securing changes and most of the changes fail, this research may contribute to make change initiatives, by giving insights and tools, in the future more successful. The central question that underlies the research is:
How should the first line manager of Case A be supported and which interventions are helpful to secure the desired individual behaviour of the executing personnel successfully, in the process of
becoming an operational excellence organization?
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
In the literature on organizational change, a lot of studies showed that changes are not as successful as they should be. This research focuses on securing changes, a part of change processes that may contribute that changes become more successful. To start this section a conceptual model (Figure 1) has been presented, which gives us an understanding how to deal with securing changes.
Conceptual model (starting point)
Two basis propositions are found in literature to be important for securing the new learned behaviour in change processes in a successful way. These two propositions, the way of executing the change process and the use of securing interventions will now be introduced.
Firstly, a prominent author and guru in the change field (Kotter, 1995) watched over more than 100 companies who had the same basic changes and goals: to make fundamental changes in how business is conducted in order to help cope with a new, more challenging market environment. Some general lessons, which could also be useful for other organizations, can be drawn from this research. At first, it must be acknowledged, from the successful cases, that change is a process. This process goes through a series of phases and each of these phases requires certain length of time and must be accomplished before going further with the next step. Secondly, Kotter found that critical mistakes in any of the phases can have a devastating impact, slowing momentum and negating hard-won gains for the rest of the change process.
only at the end of a change process, it must be incorporated from the beginning and paid attention too to the whole change process (Kotter, 1995; Lamarsh & Potts, 2004; Roberto & Levesque, 2005).
Secondly, the use of securing interventions in the organization design will help to burn new organizational grooves, embedding new patterns of behavior into the DNA of the firm and contributes that the desired behavior will be secured (Cummings & Worley, 2001; Freeman, 2006). To embed the change in the organization, conditions have to be created so ownership of the new way of working can be taken by employees. The key principles of the change initiative can be integrated and applied to the work process. These conditions occur, according to Cummings & Worley (2001), in four interrelated issues that are key targets of interventions: strategic issues, technology and structure issues, human resource issues, and human process issues. These four interrelated issues apply to four particular interventions: strategic interventions, technnostructural interventions, human process interventions, and human resource management interventions (Cummings & Worley, 2001). In Figure 1 a conceptual model has been presented which forms the starting point for this research.
The conceptual model suggests that during the change process, when the new behaviour will be incorporated by the use of interventions, and by the use of securing interventions in the organization design, the desired behaviour should be secured.
includes group design and devices for structuring interactions among members as norms and work schedules. The third and lowest level is the individual, which includes how jobs are designed to elicit required task behaviours. Although this research focused on the lowest level, individual behaviour, it is important to be aware that the levels affect each other and that these cross-level relationships emphasize that a certain level must fit with other levels to operate effectively. The choice made for the focus on the individual level is twofold: the practical problem statement of Case A and the limitation of time to focus on all the levels.
Before coming to the research objective the two propositions of the conceptual model (Figure 1) will be elaborated.
Way of executing the change process
organizations want to secure their changes, but about people. It is people who bring about the change, are the change, and react to the change positively and negatively. And if an organization wants to execute the change successful employees needed to be involved. Thereby can be acknowledged that Case A is a labour-intensive organization where behaviour is an important component to focus on in the change process ‘Project x’.
Although, people are very important in the change process of Case A, some of them will react, despite all of the measures taken, defensive to a change. Several studies (Judge et al., 1999; Oreg, 2003; Oreg, 2006; Paterson & Cary, 2002; Stanley et al. 2005; Wanberg & Banas, 2000) suggest that employees’ attitudes and reactions to organizational change, regardless of the nature of the change, appear to be influenced by certain individual dispositions. However, a more situational perspective is retained by other empirical studies. These studies take into account the environments’ influence to explain employees’ reactions to organizational change. The possibility of participating in decisions related to the change and the information received is positively related to openness to change (Chawla & Kelloway, 2004; Oreg, 2006; Miller et al., 1994; Wanberg & Banas, 2000). Vakola and Nikolau (2005) discovered that work overload, poor relations at work, and unfair treatment are positively related to a negative attitude towards change in change processes. According to Bareil, Savoie & Meunier (2007) who did a research about this topic, different organizational changes provoke distinct levels of discomfort and there are also two patterns of discomfort; a situational pattern where discomfort is differentiated and a dispositional pattern where discomfort is stable. For the individual level they found that a situational discomfort pattern was supported by a higher proportion of the respondents.
Use of interventions
Firstly a definition of an intervention is given and afterwards formulated when an intervention is effective. An intervention is defined by Cummings & Worley (2001) as a set of sequenced planned actions or events intended to help an organization increase its effectiveness. Interventions are in literature a lot used to secure the change and helps so organizations to become more effective. According to the literature an effective intervention can be measured by the use of three criteria: the extent to which it fits the needs of the organization; the degree to which it is based on causal knowledge of intended outcomes; and the extent to which it transfers change-management competence to organization members (Cummings & Worley, 2001: p 142).
occur because of inadequate or incomplete attention to any one, or a combination of the organization characteristics, the intervention characteristics, or the institutionalization processes (Osman-Gani & Jacobs, 2004).
FIGURE 3. Institutionalization of Change Framework (Osman-Gani & Jacobs, 2004)
INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF CHANGE FRAMEWORK
Organization Characteristics A. Is the intervention aligned
with the organization’s goals, management, and design?
B. Is the intervention
environment amenable for change?
C. Has the intervention
received commitment from key stakeholders?
Intervention Characteristics A.Do the intervention goals
depict the desired state?
B. Is there a process to
implement the intervention?
C. Have expectations been
stated for individuals, workflows, and groups?
D. Are resources available to
implement the intervention?
Institutionalization Processes
- Competence to meet new expectations - Self-efficacy to carry out the expectations - Commitment in terms of words and action - Incentives linked to accomplishments - Diffusion beyond the immediate setting
Change Management Interventions HRD-Training Interventions
- Cascade training - On-the-job training - Classroom/Lecture - Computer-based - Games & simulations - Case studies - Mentoring/Coaching - Self-instructional methods Other Interventions - Communication - Downsizing approach - Reward & incentive system - Employee involvement - Team-building programs - Management by objectives - Knowledge sharing systems
Institutionalization Outcomes
- Improved job behaviors - Improved job performance - Improved attitudes/ preferences
- Improved organizational norms, values, culture
Cross-Cultural Effects
In the framework of Osman-Gani and Jacobs the term ‘institutionalization of the change’ is used, which is described by several authors as the process of securing the change (Jacobs, 2002; Cummings & Worley, 1997; Beer, Eisenstat & Specot, 1990; Mirvis & Berg, 1977) and is derived from change management theory in its emphasis on understanding the roots of organizational success and failure (Osman-Gani & Jacobs, 2004).
Integrating ‘way of executing the change process’ and ‘use of (securing) interventions’ As mentioned earlier several studies state that securing behavior must be incorporated from the beginning and paid attention too during the whole change process (Kotter, 1995; Lamarsh & Potts, 2004; Roberto & Levesque, 2005) of Lewin’s three step metaphor. In Figure 4 a framework for securing individual behavior has been presented which shows that during the change process of unfreeze-move-refreeze attention can be paid to specific interventions which contribute to the success of securing the desired behavior. Also securing-interventions in the (new) organization design should be used to increase the securing success.
Securing Interventions
FIGURE 4. Framework For Securing The New Learned Desired Behaviour For Individuals
FRAMEWORK FOR SECURING BEHAVIOUR
UNFREEZING MOVING REFREEZING
SECURING PROCESS SUCCESSFUL SECURED INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOUR phase 1 phase 3 phase 2 Interventions: …. …. .... Interventions: …. …. .... Interventions: …. …. …..
Each organization is different and each change situation needs different interventions or the same interventions, but with different accents, which fit to the organization context. In the framework of Osman-Gani and Jacobs (Figure 3) examples of interventions are presented which may help to secure the change and could be used in the different phases of Lewins’ change model.
Although several studies (Kotter, 1995; Lamarsh & Potts, 2004; Roberto & Levesque, 2005) state that securing the change must be incorporated from the beginning and paid attention too during the whole change, there are authors who state that securing the change can be considered as the third stage of Lewins’ change model: “refreezing” (Finlay, 2000). According to Armenakis, Harris and Feild (1999) is a secured change one that is frozen and the process of creating it is “freezing”, seen from Lewins’ metaphorical perspective.
the perspective taken in this research will be presented according to the two opinions of the authors mentioned before. In literature less can be found about this topic, so elaboration is at its place.
Case A used during the change process “Project x” training sessions (Leer Werk Trajecten) as an intervention to learn people how to behave in the new work situation. According to Boxall & Purcal (2003) and Lamarsh & Potts (2004) training contributes to the performance of managers. Training helps managers to posses the necessary knowledge and skills. The “Leer Werk Trajecten” at Case A is an intervention that is used during the change process to prepare employees, so they can deal in a better way with the new situation. Such an intervention can be used in all the phases of Lewins’ metaphor. This example endorsed the thinking of Kotter, Lamarsh & Potts and Roberto & Levesque that interventions with a focus on securing the desired behavior must be incorporated from the beginning and paid attention to too the whole change process. But the duration of interventions like trainings can be short. Everyone knows the effect of a fantastic speech with as a consequence fantastic intentions to change the organization or your own life. But after a few weeks, when daily business or normal life goes further, nothing is left. The training session which produced the intended new way of working, where everyone is enthusiast about, is no guarantee that the new learned behavior really will be secured. In the subtitle “way of executing the change process” certain influences are described who caused that people will act differently than is prescribed or learned in training. Also in the introduction section, several authors were mentioned who state that after a while nothing of the implemented desired behaviors was left.
The other authors, Finlay and Armenakis, Harris & Feild state that securing changes is something for the last phase “refreezing”. A secured change is a change that is frozen and where behavior must become the way they do the things around here. The process of creating it is “freezing” and must be done by the use of some interventions which contribute to behavior that is secured. Continuity of the desired behavior must be reached by the use of interventions which have also impact after the change process.
It seems that both groups of authors have a point. Some measures or the use of interventions, which were done during the change process in all the phases, may contribute to the success of securing the desired behavior. But this seems, according to the other authors, not to be sufficient enough and the only way. The other group states that in the last phase of the change process and in the organization/work design the securing process really starts, and here the focus must be on securing interventions.
securing interventions presented Figure 4 in the last phase and afterwards in the organization/work design helps to sustain the desired behavior and increases the success of the securing process.
This research wants to explore how to secure the desired behavior in such a way, that the new way of working is the standard and seeps into the bloodstream of the corporate body and the minds of the employees. The focus of this research is to identify specific securing interventions which give support to the first line manager to secure the desired behavior successfully.
First line management
Although, the way of executing the change process and the use of securing interventions will help to secure the individual behavior, attention must also be paid to the first line manager who should manage the new way of working. According to Kotter (1995), Schneider, Brief & Guzzo (1996), and Williams (1989) should middle managers, managers, and staff persuade, motivate, support, understand, give feedback and generate commitment to the change. Also, is the best way to communicate change through actions rather than words and the major responsibility here for lies with management (Schneider, Brief & Guzzo, 1996 Williams, 1989). Their must be acknowledged that it can be easy forgotten that the managers themselves respond to change in the same way as their workforce. These higher levels should be enthusiast about the change and contain the necessary skills after the change. Also a conscious attempt is needed to show the workforce how the new behaviors, approaches, and attitudes have helped improve performance.
Before managers own the change, it is important that the change officially is finished and the change agent hands over it. A point must be created were the targets of the change own the new current state, so the new learned behavior becomes the way of working of there own and sees not the change as belonging to the change agents (Lamarsh & Potts, 2004).
FIGURE 5. Practical Situation Case A
PRACTICAL SITUATION
C
ASEA
Staff
(Staf)
Feedback
influences How this process
will be executed
the degree how behavior will be sustained Executing Personnel Team Coach (Team Coach) Mailmen (Postbode)
First Line Management Preparation Area Manager (VBG- Voorbereidings Gebied Manager) Chain manager (Ketenmanager) Feedback = Preparation Area X (Voorbereidings Gebied, Vestiging X)
Bommer et al. (2005) did a research about the efficacy of leader behaviour on employee attitudes. The study showed that change initiatives who engage in transformational leadership behaviour can effectively reduce their subordinates’ cynicism about organizational change. The research showed also that it is an effective tool to reduce cynicism about organizational change and can so be used to develop employees who are more open and committed to organizational change. Attention to these behaviours by the use of training and/or in selection may be deliver positive results. The relevance of this study for this research is that it shows the importance of the first line managers’ behaviour also affects the behaviour of the executive personnel.
Organizations have different levels of managers. For this research it is important to be clear about it. McNamara (1997: 2) defines top or executive managers, middle managers and first-line managers in the following general way:
“Top or executive managers are responsible for overseeing the whole organization. They typically engage in more conceptual and strategic matters, with less attention to day-to-day detail.”
“These top or executive managers have middle managers working for them and who are in charge of a major function or department.”
“Middle managers may have first-line managers working for them and who are responsible to manage the day-to-day activities of a group of workers.”
Successful secured behaviour
The realization of a successful secured organizational change seems to be the best way to describe the relative endurance of change efforts (Cummings and Worley, 1997). Endurance suggests in this context that the change of the behavior has stayed power over a length of time and the new learned behavior has become part of the ongoing, everyday activities of the production organization. Goodman and Dean (1983) endorse this and state that secured behaviors in organizations are those acts that are performed by persons, persist over time, and exist as part of the daily functioning of the organization.
Before the change really starts success must be defined. Otherwise it is not measurable of certain actions or interventions deliver the desired success, which is formulated in the beginning. Self fulfilling prophecy may be the result when success is not defined on forehand. The analysis of the change process and of it really leads to successful secured behavior can not be done. Success can be defined in this context and for this research in the following way: the intended results of the change process have also been reached when the change process is finished.
Research objective
Securing Interventions
To secure the individual behaviour of the change process ‘Project x’ of Case A four securing interventions are developed and supported by literature: involvement, instrumental anchoring, process control, and teams. By the use of case studies will be explored of these four securing interventions are present and contribute to the success of the securing process.
Involvement
Involvement/participation
to know about it (mee weten), to allow thinking about it (mee denken), to co-operate about it (mee doen) and to decide about it (mee beslissen) (Vijverberg, 2008). The accents and focus between the different ladders in literature differ mostly in the last stances. Also there are different levels at Case A where employees really feel involved to, namely: their own work, the performance of the team, VBG-location, area or the whole company.
Motivation
Parish, Cadwallader and Busch (2008) mentioned the importance of motivation in change processes. This is also endorsed by Kotter (1995) who states that without motivation and notion of the necessity to change, a lack of dedication exist by employees. This causes that every attempt to secure the change is a waste of energy. Boxall & Purcell (2003) mention also that motivation is a very important factor for successful secured behavior. According to Boxall & Purcell (2003) ‘AMO theory’ are individual performances a function of abilities, motivation, and opportunity, P=f(A,M,O). As Boxall and Purcell (2003:63) argue people perform well when:
- they are able to do so (they can do the job because they possess the necessary knowledge and skills);
- they have the motivation to do so (they will do the job because they are adequately incentivised); and
- their work environment provides the necessary support and avenues for expression (e.g.
functioning technology and the opportunity to be heard when problems occur).
Commitment
According to Fedor, Caldwell & Herold (2006) and Herscovitch & Meyer (2002) has commitment to a change been identified as an important aspect of behavioral intentions to support the change. In the securing framework of Armenakis, Harris and Feild (1999) is commitment also a crucial factor for successful change. Several studies (Becker, 1992; Maertz, Mosley, & Alford, 2002; Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979) have found that organizational commitment is related to organizational outcomes like: citizenship, job performance, absenteeism, and turnover. Looking more to the context of change, ‘change commitment represents a psychological alignment with, or attachment to, the change rather
than just reflecting a favorable disposition toward it, such as being open to, or accepting of it’ (Herold,
Fedor, Caldwell & Liu, 2008: p 347).
In a study of Herold, Fedor, Caldwell & Liu (2008) relations have been identified between the leadership style and commitment to the change. ‘Transformational leadership was found to be more
transformational, good change-management practices were found to be associated with higher levels of change commitment’ (Herold, Fedor, Caldwell & Liu, 2008: p 346).
Kotters (1996) change-leadership prescriptions like - communicating the plan for the change, building a guiding coalition, developing a sense of urgency or a compelling rationale for the change, and providing support – can be linked to one or more dimensions of transformational leadership. According to Burke (2002) and Kotter (1996) are these change-leadership behaviors linked to commitment or support for the change.
Parish, Cadwallader and Busch (2008) studied also the role of employee commitment in the success of change initiatives and found that the following all influence the commitment to change: vision, employee-manager relationship quality, job motivation, and role autonomy. The result of influencing affective commitment to change by managers through factors as proposed earlier, can deliver outcomes such as perceived implementation success, individual learning, and perceived improved performance.
Involvement, motivation and commitment: their relation
As described above and found in literature are involvement, motivation and commitment important issues that affect the individual behavior. In change processes it is important to take these aspects into account, which also contributes to secure the individual behavior. These three aspects are in a certain way, according to literature, related to each other. Although there is no doubt about the relation between these three, contradictions are found in literature about the exact relation. This research uses the explanation of the relation between the three aspects as described by the experience of Vijverberg (2008), a psychologist and didactic, working for several years at Case A. According to him is involvement the highest level which is most desirable to reach. After that comes motivation and the lowest level is commitment. When an employee is committed it will not say he or she is motivated and when motivated will not say an employee is involved/participates. Involvement causes that you become more motivated and committed to the organization. Although, all the three ingredients (involvement, motivation and commitment) are presented in a job and have all influence on the pleasure, loyalty, reliability and results of an employee, managers should direct on involvement, the highest level.
Instrumental anchoring
Poka-Yoke is to prevent mistakes by putting limits on how an operation can be performed, to force its correct execution (Belmonte, 2006). Production firms work to eliminate the potential for defects rather than focus on finding defects. The system Poka Yoke is one tool of many in the tool kit and relies on eliminating opportunities for mistakes though process change or through the use of devices like warnings, reminders, and sensors that prevent or detect from occurring (Connor, 2006). Humans are not good at inspection and noticing things and 100% accuracy never will be guaranteed. For this reason organizations focus on the elimination of the potential for defects rather than the focus on finding defects (Connor, 2006).
The standardisation at Case A and the use of Poka Yoke must lead to day-to-day actions function on a kind of auto-pilot. The way of working must reach repeatable, predictable patterns of behaviour which are important operational elements that serve to increase the quality, speed, and profitability of the production process (Freeman, 2006). The quality of these habits helps to determine the success of securing the new learned behaviour.
Process control
In a study of Ford & Greer (2005) they view management control systems as a tool for managers to control employee behavior that enables the success of a change. This study is interesting because they found that different management control systems may vary in their impact on change processes and outcomes. More interesting and relevant for this research is that they found that control systems, based on monitoring of behavior and outcomes, were found positively related to business results. A restriction to the use of this study focus on the whole change process and not specifically focuses on securing the change and behavior. Although monitoring behavior seems to be important.
A tool that can be given to control the process, which also is used by Case A is the PDCA-cycles developed by Deming. PDCA take place through four major steps to: Plan-Do-Check-Action. The PDCA cycles is used successful by many organizations (Tang, 2008) and is used at Case A to secure the upper and lower boundaries of the measures or behaviors that can be tolerated. When deviations exist certain measures by management are taken.
Teams
Because the focus of this research is on the individual behaviour and not the team behaviour, this research focuses only on how teams affect the individual behaviour and not the functioning of a team in itself. Looking to Figure 2, the model of the different organizations levels (Cummings & Worley, 2001), group design/teams is an input factor for the individual level. As described above and presented in the model, teams will be viewed from this perspective.
Teams can be defined as “a small number of people with complementary skills who are
committed to a common purpose, performance goals and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable” (Katzenbach and Smith, 1999: 45). Group cohesiveness, a ‘we feeling’ can bind
members of a group together (Kreitner, Kinicki and Buelens, 2002).
At Case A is in the pilot chosen for a team concept which directs not on team performance, but on individual performance. Interesting for this study is the influence of the team concept on the behaviour of the individual and if it contributes to secure the individual behaviour. As stated by Kreitner, Kinicke and Buelens (2002) bind cohesiveness members in teams together. If this cohesiveness or other aspects influences the individual behaviour in such a way that employees act in the desired way because of they hold themselves mutually accountable, it is an effective intervention which can be used to secure the change.
The four interventions are described separate and each of the four securing interventions will contribute to the success of securing the individual desired behaviour. Nevertheless securing individual behaviour will be best guaranteed when they are linked in an integral way.
3. METHODOLOGY
FIGURE 6. Research Model RESEARCH MODEL Define Design Collect & Analyze Analyze & Conclude Findings from literature study Problem statement TNT Mail (practical) Developing research question and theoretical framework Developed Theoretical Framework Selecting and executing case study Case study Findings Analyze findings and compare with theory Discussion, Conclusions & Recommendations
This research adopted an exploratory research strategy, which main goal was to explore how Case As’ first line management should be supported and helped by the use of interventions so the new learned individual behavior can be secured successfully in the change process ‘Project x’. Qualitative data has been conducted and the research was carried out by the use of the case study approach. According to Yin (2003: 3) are case studies ‘the preferred strategy when “how” or “why” questions
are being posed, when the investigator has little control over events, and when the focus is on a contemporary phenomenon within some real-life context’. A strength to use case studies is its ability
to deal with a full variety of evidence (Yin, 2003). The cases selected had to define success on forehand, before the change really started. Because exploration was needed how the intended success was reached and what the role of first line management in relation to the executing personnel was. Findings from the three cases were compared with each other and with the findings from literature. Recommendations were given to Case A by the use of the collected data and findings from literature. By the use of interviews with three people from each organization, the information needed was conducted.
The case study method, presented in Figure 7, used in this research is developed by COSMOS Corporation, used and recommended by Yin (2003). The design of the case study in this research was a holistic multiple-case design.
external validity of the research. The cases selected were expected to yield similar results, literal replication (Yin, 2003). Each case had to show how and why they did it in this way and if it contributed to the results. When deviations existed between the cases or theoretical framework, the deviations were analyzed and after that determined if it had contributed to the success of the organization or not.
To enlarge the reproducibility, the external reliability, of the research triangulation is used (Yin, 2003). Both, literature study and a qualitative study were used. From the theoretical framework a link was laid to the empirical data of the cases and vice versa.
Data collection
TABLE 2 - Selection criteria cases
Change Focus on individual behaviour, changes that affect a great number of employees
Type of organization >1000 employees
Processes Standardized processes
Systems Interconnected, be at the wheel
Management Performance management
Culture Operational Excellence oriented
Directing the process On basis of facts
Success Defined on forehand
The three firms selected had recently undergone an organizational change (in the last five years) or implemented Operational Excellence. These changes had to be focused on the individual behavior and had to affect a large amount of employees. The way of working, which had to be the change object, must be an important component in these changes. The following cases were selected: Case A, Case B, and Case c. These choices were made on grounds that the three cases fit to this research and selection criteria. All of the organizations had their own projects which had impact on the individual employee and their behavior. Case A has their project “Project x” (still going on), which was earlier mentioned and explained. The Case B had the project “Sneller Beter”, which is about the improvement of health care and work processes in the hospital. This project wants to reach clear agreements, to become efficient and better, and to use less cost in the process of the treatment of patients. Case c was chosen because of introducing Operational Excellence as strategic main objectives. The principles safety, healthcare and milieu are subjects which should be incorporated through the whole organization and these behaviour principles should seep in the bloodstream of the organization/employees. All these projects had an impact on the way of working. These changes were taken as starting point and checked of the individual behaviour had been secured and how they did and do it.
A case study protocol was used as an instrument to watch over the procedures and general rules that had must been followed. According to Yin (2003), having a case study protocol is essential if a multiple-case study is done. Because a protocol and a case study database had been used, the reliability of the research increased. The unit of analysis of the research design and the data collection source were on the individual level.
framework, and the practical situation at Case A had helped to select the right persons. After this, the semi-structured in depth interviews, which typically lasted on average between one and two hours, were done face-to-face with a member of the staff, one employees of the executing personnel and a first line manager from each organization. All of the three people were involved with the change or were subject of the change in a certain organization. The case selection criteria and the comparison with Case A, as described above, were used to check of a case/change meets the requirements. The majority of questions were asked regarding the goals of the study. Also, some general questions were asked to the participants’ background. Contradictions that arose during interviews within a company were discussed with the participants (Seale, 1999). Also when particular ideas or themes during earlier interviews emerged, exploration in later interviews was done. This way of working is consistent, according to Rubin and Rubin (1995), with the guidelines for conducting rigorous qualitative research. To ensure accuracy of the information collection procedure interviews were taped and transcribed (Rubin & Rubin, 1995). The semi-structured in-depth interview method was chosen because of the strengths of it: that they are targeted; interviews focus directly on the case study topic; and the insightfulness, providing perceived causal inferences (Yin, 2003). Also the use of the interview method helped to enable a standardized format of collecting the necessary data required. The design of the semi-structured in-depth interviews was based on the theoretical framework.
It was important that during the research and case studies the focus was on the same aspects. The fencing of the research, which was done in the theoretical framework section, and the case study protocol helped that the focus during the whole research was on the same aspects.
Data analysis
The data from the semi-structured in-depth interviews were compared with each other and the findings from literature presented in the “Theoretical Framework” section. Case A is used as main case and the other two organizations, Case B and Case c are used for illustration and to find sufficient support for the securing interventions. This causes according to Yin (2003) triangulation, rationale for multiple sources of evidence. Patton (1987) discussed four types of triangulation in doing evaluations. Concerning this research, the triangulation of data sources (data triangulation) is utilized. Yin (2003) also states that with data triangulation the potential problems of construct validity van be addressed. This because of the multiple sources of evidence essentially provide multiple measured of the same phenomenon.
interventions were present, if they support the first line manager and if they were valued as a sufficient contribution to the securing process. The interviews done evaluated the situations at the different organizations. The data from these interviews were analyzed in three ways. Firstly, all interviews from an organization were conducted and presented in tables which formed a general picture of the organization. So a comparison between the different organizations was possible to do. Secondly, the data from the interviews were presented by function of the employees interviewed and so aspects of a certain function could be analyzed. Thirdly, the central question of this research was divided in five categories: first line manager, support, interventions, change process and success. Each question was coded and placed in the categories they had a relation with. So for every category it was easy to see what questions were related to a certain category and made it easier to analyze the data and to say something about a certain aspect from the central question. The use of Excel spreadsheets, where transcripts were entered into, made it easier to make the comparison across the interviews (Hartley, 1994). The result of this way of analyzing and categorizing the data was three tables as presented in the “Result” section. According to Yin (2003) is this phase of the research, analyzing case study evidence, especially difficult because the techniques and strategies have not been well defined. Because of the difficulty of analyzing the data, the data was categorized in such a way and presented in figures and tables, as mentioned above, that the examination of the data became more structured.
From the cases selected, exploration according to the securing interventions developed, contribution to the securing process and the degree of support for the first line management, was the result of the data collection. The case studies gave insight how the change processes in practice were executed, how they secured the new learned behaviour and what contributed to it. The securing interventions presented in the theoretical framework were checked in which degree they were present and if they contributed.
and no inconsistencies among each other. So pattern matching had been a sufficient tool which enlarged the internal validity of this study done.
As mentioned before, this research (case study) relied on an analytical generalization. According to Yin (2003), in analytical generalization the investigator is striving to generalize a particular set of results to some broader theory. The results of this research lead to a general theory to secure the individual behaviour. Although, this generalization is not automatic, the external validity of this research was enlarged by replication logic in other cases; where the developed theory had specified that the same results should occur in these other cases. When these direct replications had been made, the results might be accepted as providing a strong support for the theory, the developed securing interventions.
4. RESULTS
The results of the data revealed, as expected and endorsed by literature (Kotter, 1995; Schneider, Brief & Guzzo, 1996; Williams, 1989), the importance of the first line managers as a spill function in the success of securing the individual desired behaviour. The four securing interventions as presented in the theoretical framework were all supported with the conducted data. Although they were present in a certain way, they were not all deliberate and in the same degree used as interventions for securing the individual desired behaviour. The interviews done were used to explore of the four interventions were present and valuable for securing the individual behaviour. The results of the conducted data are presented in Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5. The data is analysed and checked on consistence. Three ways were used here fore, as discussed earlier in the methodology section: general picture of each organization, function of the employee (first line manager, staff member an executing personnel) and the five categories derived from the central question. This led till the three tables with results, presented in Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5. Before presenting these tables a short description of each case has been presented.
Case B: The change project “Sneller Beter” done at the Case B was an initiative from the
Ministerie van VWS, the Nederlandse Vereniging van Ziekenhuizen and the Orde van Medisch Specialisten. Recommendations and objectives were done by people from CASE A, Shell and AEGON,
who did research and helped developing “Sneller Beter”. “Sneller Beter” is about solid and clear agreements to help the patient quicker, better and cheaper. Case B joined this project in October 2005 and finished it in November 2007. Success was defined on forehand.
duration was eight weeks and was done to test it before the first role out will take place. Success was defined on forehand; working norms (measured in time) must be reached by the employees. Also the whole project must deliver an amount of money, 30 – 50 million euros in a year.
TABLE 3 - Data results securing interventions
Closer description valuation interventions Interview quotes
In v o lv e m e n t
Involvement was valued as the most important securing intervention and was used and paid a lot of attention too in many different ways in the cases. Communication and clearness about the intervention involvement is important. Employees want to have clear where it is possible to say something about and where not. Involvement was typified as a soft (human) intervention. Also the cases support it as an intervention which contributed to the securing process by using it also during the change process.
• “The Hague stimulates to be involved on the different levels.” (Case A)
• “Each level of involvement has been applied and is written down, less on the highest level, to decide about it (mee beslissen) and everything on the first level to know about it (mee weten).” (Case A)
• “Involvement will be reached to really involve people. Work meetings and project meetings are made so employees can decide about certain aspects. Others are only to know about it.” (Case B)
• “Involvement is anchored in consultation committees, according to the linkin pin model.” (Case B)
• “Involvement is measured every year in a employee investigation by an external organization and based on the results projects are started.” (Case C)
• “Road shows are organized by management to involve employees.” (Case C)
In s tr u m e n ta l a n c h o ri n g
The intervention instrumental anchoring was present and used in every case. Although it is, according to the interviewees, not exactly the focus for changing behaviour in itself, they
acknowledged that it contributes to the success of securing the desired behaviour. It should be used as support, in integrative way with soft interventions. In itself it does not change
behaviour in the minds of employees. Technical anchoring was mostly typified in the interviews as a hard (technical)
intervention.
• “The arrangement of the work environment (instrumentally anchored) has been changed, which increases efficiency.” (Case A)
• “The whole setting is so arranged that work can be done only in one way.” (Case A)
• “Executing instrumental interventions (system) interventions are an easy way to let employees do what you want that they do, but do they catch behaviour in itself. These interventions make securing behaviour easier to do.” (Case B)
• “The education in the first years of the jobs, where is learned to use certain safety instruments, causes that we understand why certain instrumental anchoring interventions are used and behaviour should be anchored.” (Case C)
• “A lot of instruments (Poka Yoke) are used for the safety of the employees.” (Case C)
P ro c e s s c o n tr o
l Process control (typified as a hard, technical intervention) was present in every case. The term PDCA was familiar and
acknowledged as a useful intervention for securing behaviour. This intervention was also valued as one that must not be used as the leading one for securing behaviour. The PDCA cycles should be standardized through the whole organization and fully be closed; also the higher levels should be present in the cycles. This increases the success and decreases the dependency of the first line manager.
• “The total process is becoming more transparent by the use of the PDCA cycles.” (Case A) • “The PDCA cycle must be executed by all employees, the circle must be round. (Case A)
• “Although the term PDCA is not familiar by everyone, it is used a lot. Process control is interweaved in the whole daily process and integrated and secured in the quality program NIAZ.” (Case B)
• “Systems, checklist, workflow screens are used to monitor and direct the daily process. (Case B)
• “Because most of the employees are professionals who know exactly what to do, only the boundary conditions should be controlled. A lot of the daily business behaviour is secured in their education and the remaining by process control.” (Case B)
• “Process control, PDCA, is arranged with the use of SAP and checklists.” (Case C)
T
e
a
m
s
Teams are used in every case. Awareness that it is an useful intervention for securing behaviour exists, but in some cases not used optimally yet. This because the working field in which teams are used in certain cases and the people working in a certain field. In the case of Case A teams were used in the pilot, but not effective as a securing intervention according to the data and analysis. They introduced the team concept in the role out in a form that it contributes to the securing process. Teams were mostly typified in the interviews as soft (human) intervention.
• “Do we, with "Toekomst VBG (pilot), throw away the team concept as securing intervention?” (Case A) • “Social control within teams is important. Teams should be used as securing intervention. Teams become more self directing when they point each other on certain behaviour. Also the first line managers’ dependency on the success of the securing process will be lowered down by the use of teams as securing intervention. We learned from the pilot that teams helped secure the behaviour.” (Case A)
• “Teams are formed just because they are departments/units. The team concept does not fully work well. In the health care sector it is difficult to speak up and point someone on certain behaviour. More can be done with the team intervention within the hospital.” (Case B)
• “The department/unit, as a team, ensures that the behaviour will be secured. (Case B)
TABLE 4 -
Successful contribution of the securing interventions to the desired behaviour
Desired behaviour/
Success
Case B - Solid and clear agreements are needed to help the patient quicker, better and cheaper.
Case A - Quality must be improved, processes more efficient and cost reduced. Behaviour must
become more standardized.
Case C - High demands are formulated to secure the quality of the infrastructure and processes.
With a focus on safety.
In v o lv e m e n t
• “To enlarge the involvement workgroups are started up when necessary.”
• “General work meetings are interwoven in the structure to involve people. We work with the linkin-pin model.”
• “In my experience it is important to involve the right people in the workgroups. When they are enthusiast they tell it to the others.”
• “The lines are very short, so involvement is high."
• “Coffee talks during the break are done to involve the employees concerning the daily business.” • “A central board is used to communicate information like the results of a certain location.” • “The developed involvement ladder is formulated for every function and the execution of it causes that every employees should be involved in the way as subscribed.”
• “Road shows are organized by management to involve employees to stimulate the dialogue.” • “A magazine called GRID is spread through the organization with the new developments.” • “Work meetings and safety meetings are used to involve employees about certain issues.”
• “Involvement is measured in an employee investigation by an external organization. Based on the results projects are started.”
In s tru m e n ta l a n c h o ri n g
• “System interventions have an impact on the behaviour of employees and the securing process.” • “Because a lot clever tools are used, behaviour seeps into the daily business. Also when new people are entering the organization, this desired behaviour is generally secured.”
• “With the rebuilding of the roentgen department behaviour is anchored in the new disposition.”
• “The arrangement of the work floor causes that work must be done in a certain way and leaves less space to us to behave in another way.”
• “The work environment and the materials handed over causes that the possibilities to do our work are standardized. Before we had more materials to do our work and a choice to decide how to do it.” • “Specific things are build in the process that the work must be done as subscribed and desired.”
• “For the safety of the employees a gas detection instrument on the belt is used, which makes a sound when gas has been detected.”
• “A safety film must be watched before entering a building.”
• “A lot of technical instrumentally anchoring interventions are use at the gas installation to influence the behaviour in a successful way.”
P ro c e s s c o n tro
l • “A radiology information system is used, which
causes that the capacity is planned and reacts on externalities. It is an important tool for controlling of the desired behaviour will be executed.”
• “Every room has a screen where the work flow and the daily activities are presented on.”
• “Team leaders of the roentgen department are handed checklists over to handle the daily business and control the desired behaviour.”
• “PDCA is used as an intervention to control the daily business and behaviour as desired. Checklists and measureslist are handed over.”
• “It is important that the whole PDCA cycle has been done; every level should be included and execute their tasks, to increase the success." • “We use an information system to control the daily business and direct on basis of this information the capacity.”
• “For the gas installation maintenance and
reparations are checklist developed and are used in the daily business.”
• “An information program SAP is used which deliver maintenance assignments to the employees and controls the daily business.”
• “Because of the information system behaviour of the employees becomes more transparent.”
T
e
a
m
s
• “It is difficult in the healthcare sector to point someone in a team on their responsibilities. We are supporting this, by installing a place where voluntary incidents can be reported.”
• “Departments, which can be seen in my view as teams, causes that the desired behaviour will be secured.”
• “More can be done in to use the team concept as a successful securing intervention.”
• “In the pilot the team concept as securing intervention is thrown over board.”
• “During the pilot we are directed on individual performances and not on team performance.” • “Social control and pointing each other on behaviour exist within teams, but during the pilot not done sufficient, because they know that is was over after 8 weeks.”
• “The use of teams contributes to the securing of the desired behaviour.”
• “Individual performances as well as team performances are used to direct and reward the employees.”
• “There are two till three work agreements on team based and also about five individual work
TABLE 5 - General data results
First line manager Support Interventions Change process Success
Case C
The first line manager has a lot of freedom and has also influence on the degree of
success of securing the desired behaviour. Work meetings and the possibility
to start up projects groups (to involve people in his department/ unit) are the main tools. Knowledge about
the work content is desirable.
Support of the staff is not standardized, but sufficient
enough as support during "Sneller Beter". Use of them
is more demand-driven or project based. Because of working with professionals all levels of involvement are
required. To enlarge the success of securing it is important to install also an
owner outside the staff.
The securing interventions are all present in a certain way. Involvement is seen as
the appropriate securing intervention, including motivation and commitment
(work meetings are used a lot). Soft interventions should be leading and causes much more success. Hard interventions should be
used as support.
Interventions were used during the change process,
which have, according to interviewees, contributed to
the securing process. Also attention was paid to the securing process in the last
phase and further. During the change process people
were informed and where possible involved on a higher
level.
Success was determined on forehand. The right persons who participate in the project
groups or where involved during the process contributed to the success.
The logistical principles introduced in the hospital causes success in most of
the projects. The quality program NIAZ helped to
secure the desired behaviour.
Case A (pilot)
The first line managers' work is in general standardized and seen as a spill function
in the securing process of the desired behaviour. They
are a part of the PDCA cycles. The Keten manager and Area director should be more involved in the PDCA cycles. Securing becomes so less depended on the first
line managers.
Staff reached a lot of procedures, tools, trainings, information and support. The staffs’ support to the first line
managers and team coaches is satisfying. In all the interventions reached or levels staff has developed or taught about how it should
be done. They are also responsible for the results.
The four interventions are all present in a certain way. Only the team concept was
in the pilot not right used. The involvement process leads to agreements with the
employees, which are leading and no freedom in
behaviour is tolerated. Communication about agreements and the level of
involvement is needed.
Because the change process is not ended it is
difficult to analyze it. Although sufficient interventions were used before and during the pilot.
The interviewees experienced that in the preparation phase and during the pilot enough is
done concerning the information facility. People understand why changing.
Success is defined on forehand. The pilot delivered
yet not the desirable norm, but how the things should not be done in the role out.
Different opinions were given of the change will lead
to the desired norm and so "Toekomst VBG" will become a success. It is not
finished, so success of the whole change process is not
reached yet.
Case C
The first line manager is responsible for the success
in the area. The work is in general standardized and has a large impact on the behaviour of the executing personnel. Work pressure brings along that some prescribed procedures get
less attention than is required, which decreases
the securing process.
Staff reaches a lot support during the last periods. Competence management and directive coaching are new aspects within Case C.
In general is the support of the staff sufficient. A lot of tools and information passes
through the organization, maybe too much
information.
The four interventions are all present. Some of them are
in their childhood, but the development is going on. Securing behaviour should be led by soft measures like
involvement and teams, human focussed. Process
control and instrumental anchoring should be used together with them, but more
as support.
The main focus and most important issue is safety
within Case C. During change processes al lot of
attention is paid to this aspect. It starts with their eduaction they get before they are able to work. Before and in the change process a
lot has been done to increase success of securing the behaviour.
The whole organization is focussed on safety and new
measures are incorporated following the general channels. Everyone has a safety target within the Case
5. DISCUSSION
Four securing interventions Involvement
The collected data showed that involvement is an important intervention for securing the desired behaviour. It seems to be the most important one, according to the interviews. Although the intervention was highly appreciated as a securing intervention, the interventions should also be used, and is highly recommended during the change process. During most of the interviews a lot of examples were given, concerning involvement, about the change process and the use of the intervention. In the beginning of the interviews a few questions were about the change process in itself and during these questions involvement was valued as very important. Coming to the questions about the securing intervention involvement, the interviewees gave a lot of answers with examples not specific as an intervention in the design, but used during the change process. Although the cases support involvement as an intervention during the change, it was also acknowledged as an important securing intervention in the organization design. According to the data, both ways of using the interventions, during the change process and in the organization design, contribute to the success of securing the desired behaviour. Also the behaviour of key persons was related to the success of the desired behaviour. The cases showed that key persons, who have a lack of involvement in the change process or in the design, causes a negative impact on the success.
